# Our resident Pagans



## Hessian

First lady Michelle Obama, on the other hand, has said: “We try to go to church as much as possible,” which, according to an analysis by Politico, has meant an average of just three Sundays a year during the Obama presidency, and only once on Christmas, in 2011.

Read more at http://www.youngcons.com/obama-not-...mas-presence-distracting/#vMzqpjF0igORgOZ8.99

Blow the dust off the KJV Barry,...and for once set it on top of the Koran. (Wow, mind blow!)


----------



## vraiblonde

I'm not sure that Americans care so much anymore if their President goes to church.  What is it, 20% of all Americans attend church regularly?


----------



## ciwmj

Hessian said:


> First lady Michelle Obama, on the other hand, has said: “We try to go to church as much as possible,” which, according to an analysis by Politico, has meant an average of just three Sundays a year during the Obama presidency, and only once on Christmas, in 2011.
> 
> Read more at http://www.youngcons.com/obama-not-...mas-presence-distracting/#vMzqpjF0igORgOZ8.99
> 
> Blow the dust off the KJV Barry,...and for once set it on top of the Koran. (Wow, mind blow!)




I didn't know that mooselimbs went to Church !!!


----------



## b23hqb

vraiblonde said:


> I'm not sure that Americans care so much anymore if their President goes to church.  What is it, 20% of all Americans attend church regularly?



Probably right, but most Americans surely expect their president to live as he preaches, and if he calls himself a Christian, real Christians would expect him to be a bit more regular in attending his so-called belief systems meetings. Or they are probably just CINO's, as I suspect.


----------



## Humbled

Must we go to church. or buy into/support organized religion, to be Christians ?... Or simply to believe in and follow God's will ?


----------



## vraiblonde

Humbled said:


> Must we go to church. or buy into/support organized religion, to be Christians ?... Or simply to believe in and follow God's will ?



I was going to ask that question as well.  Do you have to be a member of an organized religion and attend an authorized church in order to be a Christian?


----------



## Amused_despair

vraiblonde said:


> I was going to ask that question as well.  Do you have to be a member of an organized religion and attend an authorized church in order to be a Christian?



John 4:21-25: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4:1-25&version=NIV;KJV
"21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”"

I have always read this as Jesus saying one does not need to be in a special place to worship but instead to worship God by being as God would wish: devout, obeying God, etc.  An extra 5 bonus points for the first person who posts what Bible verse it is where Jesus says that you don't get bonus points for making a big deal about praying, fasting, and giving alms.  That it is the intent that matters, not the fact you do it just so others will notice you and think highly of you for doing so.


----------



## b23hqb

Amused_despair said:


> John 4:21-25: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4:1-25&version=NIV;KJV
> "21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”"
> 
> I have always read this as Jesus saying one does not need to be in a special place to worship but instead to worship God by being as God would wish: devout, obeying God, etc.  An extra 5 bonus points for the first person who posts what Bible verse it is where Jesus says that you don't get bonus points for making a big deal about praying, fasting, and giving alms.  That it is the intent that matters, not the fact you do it just so others will notice you and think highly of you for doing so.



Absolutely right, but a Christian is known by the fruit they produce (Matt 7:16,19,-20, 12:23, John 15:8, 16, James 3:13-18, especially 17-18, to name a few). Hard to display fruit if one is never around others of like thought. Those will bring it out of you, or show the lack of it in you there forth.

Your example of "you don't get bonus points for making a big deal about praying, fasting, and giving alms.", etc. (Matthew 6 1 -18 specifically, but it carries on throughout the rest of the chapter), is exactly right.

It's awful hard to grow a Christian without being watered and nurtured by others of the same faith. Jesus, through the writings of the NT authors, makes that abundantly clear as well about the importance of being around like believers and meeting, fellow shipping, worshiping, praying, singing, and studying together.


----------



## Amused_despair

All it takes to grow a Christian is the desire to be a Christian.  Surrounding one's self with other Christians will neither guarantee success nor failure.  The desire must come from with in you.  Stephen stood alone against a crowd and proclaimed his love of Jesus even as he was stoned to death.Think of all the so-called Christians who participated in the Inquisition along with the other "Christians".  Just because everyone is thinking the same doesn't make the thinking correct.


----------



## b23hqb

Amused_despair said:


> All it takes to grow a Christian is the desire to be a Christian.  Surrounding one's self with other Christians will neither guarantee success nor failure.  The desire must come from with in you.  Stephen stood alone against a crowd and proclaimed his love of Jesus even as he was stoned to death.Think of all the so-called Christians who participated in the Inquisition along with the other "Christians".  Just because everyone is thinking the same doesn't make the thinking correct.



You sound like a DIY'er. Good for you. But, just curious, how does Stephen fit into your stance on people can do it alone without any others? 

Stephen was simply one of the leaders in the early church as it grew exponentially, well known and respected by his peers in the church, so much so that he was chosen as one of the seven deacons to grow and manage the church. One heck of a public responsibility, agreed? He was also falsely accused by the Jews, and gave a very solid, public defense of Christianity before his accusers before he was taken outside and stoned to death (Acts 6:1 - 7:60). He was simply, by God's plan, to be the first Christian to be murdered for his belief, to be followed by unknown probably millions to follow the same fate.

He was certainly out front in leadership of the church.

Surely you could have found a better example of a Christian believer that does it on their own other than Stephen, don't ya think?


----------



## Humbled

It's awful hard to grow a Christian without being watered and nurtured by others of the same faith. Jesus, through the writings of the NT authors, makes that abundantly clear as well about the importance of being around like believers and meeting, fellow shipping, worshiping, praying, singing, and studying together.[/QUOTE]

"To grow a Christian" Ok, agreed, but if you are already a Believer, I would think your duty would be to spread the word to non-believers, and the un-knowing.  You wont be doing much of that by hanging out in church.


----------



## b23hqb

From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Eph 4:16)

An easy read for anyone, with plenty of scripture on why Christians need to be together:

http://orwellbible.org/2007/02/13/why-christians-need-each-other/

http://www.basicsofchristianity.com/growth/new-believer-basics-fellowship.htm

https://bible.org/seriespage/what-does-it-take-grow


    C. Overview: Seven Habits of Maturing Christians

We will focus on the Seven Basic Habits every Christian needs to develop in order to grow to spiritual maturity. My goal is to…

    Equip you with the skills you need to begin these habits

    Explain the tools you need to continue these habits.

    1. In order to grow we need to eat—The Bible

    2. In order to grow we need to breathe—Prayer

    3. In order to grow we need good spiritual hygiene—Confession of sin

*4. In order to grow we need a caring family—Fellowship

    5. In order to grow we need regular exercise—Service

    6. In order to grow we need protection—Temptation

    7. In order to grow we need to give—Stewardship*

Etc., etc. Only about 63 million other hits on the topic.


----------



## b23hqb

Come on, now.........


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> You sound like a DIY'er. Good for you. But, just curious, how does Stephen fit into your stance on people can do it alone without any others?



What other Christians stood with Stephen when he exclaimed that he saw Jesus?  What other Christians stood with him as the stones flew?  He stood alone.  He did not waiver.  He did not need the safety and comfort of others thinking like him to preserve his faith.  All he needed was his faith.  You seem to need a crowd.


----------



## hotcoffee

Interesting thread....  

Do you have to go to church to be a Christian?  No.

Acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is what allows you to be counted as a Christian.

Baptism won't save you.

Going to church won't save you.

Spreading the Gospel will not save you.  

Being kind to others will not save you.

Giving all you own to charity will not save you.

Tithing will not save you.

Regular attendance, occasional attendance, or holiday attendance will not save you.....

Attending the right church will not save you.....I remember the big debate over religion when John Kennedy was running for President.  The fact the Kennedy family were Catholics was a real problem for a lot of people.... now people just vote for entirely different reasons.

As a matter of fact, _those who have *not* received Christ_ as their personal savior yet go to church, are baptized, give regularly to charity, and tithe usually _*never*_ become Christians.  

It only takes Acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal Savior to achieve Salvation.

Once you accept Him.... you will want to tell people... it's natural.  

*In order to grow*.... you will need a Bible and prayer.  Sometimes a brick and mortar church will meet your needs... but now there are more options.... there is church on TV.... Radio... and Internet....  

_I think of the Bible as letters from home.... and prayer as that phone call from home..._.


----------



## onel0126

Soooooo, as a Catholic, I read threads in this post and see it as the poster child for the complete failure the reformation was and continues to be. Once there was one Pope and now everyone is there own pope. Once there was one Christian church, now everyone and every old Safeway is a church. One thinks you need a physical building to attend regularly, one says you don't ever have to attend.


----------



## Amused_despair

When the Borgias became Pope's it kind of ruined the idea that just being selected Pope granted some kind of celestial blessing of divine wisdom. 

I agree with Hotcoffee, the only path to Heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior.  Jesus considered even thoughts of sin to be as sinful as the deeds themselves. He also said that one had to be more devout a follower of  God's Law than the Scribes and Pharisees, that he did not come to overthrow the Laws of Moses but to fulfill them.  With all of these differing requirements it is impossible for man to be everything that is required to enter Heaven. But nothing is impossible for God. All you have to do is believe in Him and accept Him. 
But that means acting as he instructed: helping others, giving your time and wealth to the less fortunate. Otherwise He will tell you "when I was hungry you did not feed me, when I was homeless you turned me away.  I tell you I do not know you."
Do not worry so much about the world of man, worry about your life with God. By your actions be a lamp to brighten a room. Do not seek power over others, instead give up power over yourself to God.


----------



## onel0126

Amused_despair said:


> When the Borgias became Pope's it kind of ruined the idea that just being selected Pope granted some kind of celestial blessing of divine wisdom.  I agree with Hotcoffee, the only path to Heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior.  Jesus considered even thoughts of sin to be as sinful as the deeds themselves. He also said that one had to be more devout a follower of  God's Law than the Scribes and Pharisees, that he did not come to overthrow the Laws of Moses but to fulfill them.  With all of these differing requirements it is impossible for man to be everything that is required to enter Heaven. But nothing is impossible for God. All you have to do is believe in Him and accept Him. But that means acting as he instructed: helping others, giving your time and wealth to the less fortunate. Otherwise He will tell you "when I was hungry you did not feed me, when I was homeless you turned me away.  I tell you I do not know you." Do not worry so much about the world of man, worry about your life with God. By your actions be a lamp to brighten a room. Do not seek power over others, instead give up power over yourself to God.


    Christ didn't promise to Peter that there wouldn't be "bad" popes...He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the one, holy, catholic, apostolic  Church. Two thousand years later and the promise remains intact.


----------



## b23hqb

hotcoffee said:


> Interesting thread....
> 
> Do you have to go to church to be a Christian?  No.
> 
> Acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is what allows you to be counted as a Christian.
> 
> Baptism won't save you.
> 
> Going to church won't save you.
> 
> Spreading the Gospel will not save you.
> 
> Being kind to others will not save you.
> 
> Giving all you own to charity will not save you.
> 
> Tithing will not save you.
> 
> Regular attendance, occasional attendance, or holiday attendance will not save you.....
> 
> Attending the right church will not save you.....I remember the big debate over religion when John Kennedy was running for President.  The fact the Kennedy family were Catholics was a real problem for a lot of people.... now people just vote for entirely different reasons.
> 
> As a matter of fact, _those who have *not* received Christ_ as their personal savior yet go to church, are baptized, give regularly to charity, and tithe usually _*never*_ become Christians.
> 
> It only takes Acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal Savior to achieve Salvation.
> 
> Once you accept Him.... you will want to tell people... it's natural.
> 
> *In order to grow*.... you will need a Bible and prayer.  Sometimes a brick and mortar church will meet your needs... but now there are more options.... there is church on TV.... Radio... and Internet....
> 
> _I think of the Bible as letters from home.... and prayer as that phone call from home..._.



What you say is true, but is it good, or the best option? Nowhere in scripture does it say one cannot be saved by themselves and keep to themselves. But there is plenty of scripture that points out the negatives of remaining in the closet by oneself instead of becoming involved in the work. The parable of the sower of the seeds point that out many will wither and die because they do not take root and prosper. There is also plenty of scripture that point out the positives of being involved, and that it is best to become part of the body. 

Why hide your light under a bushel instead of bringing it out in the open with other believers? The learning curve is greatly enhanced, and growth as well, by being in company of like-minded individuals.

Believers should be shining lights on a hill that others can see and come to for information on why they are like that. You don't have to blow your own horn. One's witness of lifestyle will do that by itself.


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Why hide your light under a bushel instead of bringing it out in the open with other believers? The learning curve is greatly enhanced, and growth as well, by being in company of like-minded individuals.
> 
> Believers should be shining lights on a hill that others can see and come to for information on why they are like that. You don't have to blow your own horn. One's witness of lifestyle will do that by itself.



And that there is the key.  Who is a better example of being a shining light of Christianity?  On who exclaims at every chance that they are a devout Christian as they drive to church every Sunday in their nice car from their nice house while counting every penny they have and wishing for more, or the one who goes to Africa and cares for those who would die without their care and receives nothing but harassment for their efforts?


----------



## hotcoffee

b23hqb said:


> What you say is true, but is it good, or the best option? Nowhere in scripture does it say one cannot be saved by themselves and keep to themselves. But there is plenty of scripture that points out the negatives of remaining in the closet by oneself instead of becoming involved in the work. The parable of the sower of the seeds point that out many will wither and die because they do not take root and prosper. There is also plenty of scripture that point out the positives of being involved, and that it is best to become part of the body.
> 
> Why hide your light under a bushel instead of bringing it out in the open with other believers? The learning curve is greatly enhanced, and growth as well, by being in company of like-minded individuals.
> 
> Believers should be shining lights on a hill that others can see and come to for information on why they are like that. You don't have to blow your own horn. One's witness of lifestyle will do that by itself.



No one said that Christians should hide their faith.  But, some seem to think all Christians have to go to church.


----------



## b23hqb

Amused_despair said:


> And that there is the key.  Who is a better example of being a shining light of Christianity?  On who exclaims at every chance that they are a devout Christian as they drive to church every Sunday in their nice car from their nice house while counting every penny they have and wishing for more, or the one who goes to Africa and cares for those who would die without their care and receives nothing but harassment for their efforts?



I challenge anyone on this forum to show me a name of an individual in the Bible, either OT under the law believer, or NT believer under grace provided by Jesus, the God-man, that was not part of a church/nation of belief, a group of believers under His name, or publicly demonstrated such belief. You won't find one, simply because God wants his peeps to be together, as a family and as a body, for strength, fellowship, and furthering His name.

Name me one, please. 

No personal or emotional feelings needed. The Scripture speaks for itself.


----------



## hotcoffee

Amused_despair said:


> And that there is the key.  Who is a better example of being a shining light of Christianity?  On who exclaims at every chance that they are a devout Christian as they drive to church every Sunday in their nice car from their nice house while counting every penny they have and wishing for more, or the one who goes to Africa and cares for those who would die without their care and receives nothing but harassment for their efforts?



You don't have to go to Africa to serve. Keeping a Biblical thread going helps these days.


----------



## b23hqb

hotcoffee said:


> No one said that Christians should hide their faith.  But, some seem to think all Christians have to go to church.



Who? Not me. I simply stated that those that proclaim Christ should be in company with a body of fellow believers, as stated numerous times in scripture. The Bible states such. I simply believe it that it is far better for the individual than staying in seclusion. The Bible is my basis for that belief.


----------



## b23hqb

Humbled said:


> It's awful hard to grow a Christian without being watered and nurtured by others of the same faith. Jesus, through the writings of the NT authors, makes that abundantly clear as well about the importance of being around like believers and meeting, fellow shipping, worshiping, praying, singing, and studying together.



"To grow a Christian" Ok, agreed, but if you are already a Believer, I would think your duty would be to spread the word to non-believers, and the un-knowing.  You wont be doing much of that by hanging out in church.[/QUOTE]

I'm here, by the grace of God, ain't I? This is public, and has nothing to do with my church family.


----------



## b23hqb

Humbled said:


> It's awful hard to grow a Christian without being watered and nurtured by others of the same faith. Jesus, through the writings of the NT authors, makes that abundantly clear as well about the importance of being around like believers and meeting, fellow shipping, worshiping, praying, singing, and studying together.



"To grow a Christian" Ok, agreed, but if you are already a Believer, I would think your duty would be to spread the word to non-believers, and the un-knowing.  You wont be doing much of that by hanging out in church.[/QUOTE]

I'm here, ain't I? Not from church, but from my home.


----------



## GURPS

Humbled said:


> Must we go to church. or buy into/support organized religion, to be Christians ?... Or simply to believe in and follow God's will ?





vraiblonde said:


> I was going to ask that question as well.  Do you have to be a member of an organized religion and attend an authorized church in order to be a Christian?





you are supposed to fellowship with other Christians ..... read and discuss the Word


----------



## GURPS

b23hqb said:


> Absolutely right, but a Christian is known by the fruit they produce (Matt 7:16,19,-20, 12:23, John 15:8, 16, James 3:13-18, especially 17-18, to name a few). Hard to display fruit if one is never around others of like thought. Those will bring it out of you, or show the lack of it in you there forth.
> 
> Your example of "you don't get bonus points for making a big deal about praying, fasting, and giving alms.", etc. (Matthew 6 1 -18 specifically, but it carries on throughout the rest of the chapter), is exactly right.
> 
> It's awful hard to grow a Christian without being watered and nurtured by others of the same faith. Jesus, through the writings of the NT authors, makes that abundantly clear as well about the importance of being around like believers and meeting, fellow shipping, worshiping, praying, singing, and studying together.


----------



## GURPS

Amused_despair said:


> I agree with Hotcoffee, the only path to Heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior.  Jesus considered even thoughts of sin to be as sinful as the deeds themselves.




Carlin did a bit about this .... I believe on Class Clown - 1972



at 27 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7YDCXS5gc4


----------



## b23hqb

Still waiting for an answer for any name in the Bible that was not associated with a group of believers, or church/nation.........

All you politically correct religious peeps.........stand up or shut up.

Yes, I am calling you out. Be bold, or sit down.

The Bible says to be bold and speak forth the truth.


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Still waiting for an answer for any name in the Bible that was not associated with a group of believers, or church/nation.........
> 
> All you politically correct religious peeps.........stand up or shut up.
> 
> Yes, I am calling you out. Be bold, or sit down.
> 
> The Bible says to be bold and speak forth the truth.



It is always amazing how talking of the Prince of Peace always brings out the peacefulness in people.


----------



## Larry Gude

If they went to church regularly, would that have meant you voted for them or think he would have made a better President? I mean, what's the point, here?


----------



## hotcoffee

b23hqb said:


> Who? Not me. I simply stated that those that proclaim Christ should be in company with a body of fellow believers, as stated numerous times in scripture. The Bible states such. I simply believe it that it is far better for the individual than staying in seclusion. The Bible is my basis for that belief.



I know it says "Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”  This seems to be where Jesus calls for us to spend our time with believers for support.  I learn so much from talking to believers.  




b23hqb said:


> Still waiting for an answer for any name in the Bible that was not associated with a group of believers, or church/nation.........
> 
> All you politically correct religious peeps.........stand up or shut up.
> 
> Yes, I am calling you out. Be bold, or sit down.
> 
> The Bible says to be bold and speak forth the truth.



I always thought that Isiah 49:16 *"See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands"* was the quote for the solitary Christian. 

Now, because you made me look it up.... I see I am wrong.  The quote continues *"your walls are ever before me."*  So it became apparent to me that Isiah was talking about the people of Israel. not lowly little hotcoffee.  

So.... going back to the original post.... If President & Mrs. Obama are both Christians and they meet regularly to study the Word.... then Matthew 18:20 would apply to them because that is two believers gathered.  So we know the President claims to be a Christian.  Is his wife a Christian?  

On the purely political side of the question.... the reason I brought up the Kennedy family.... people were afraid that the Pope and the Catholic Church would be running the country through President Kennedy.  



Oh and as for me.... since I don't go to church... I'm glad I can gather online with you.... I learn and grow through searching scripture and taking part in these discussions with other Christians.


----------



## PsyOps

Given where Obama formerly went to church, I think I prefer he just stay home.


----------



## onel0126

PsyOps said:


> Given where Obama formerly went to church, I think I prefer he just stay home.



Yep


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> Given where Obama formerly went to church, I think I prefer he just stay home.


----------



## Amused_despair

Seeing as how George Washington rarely attended church and was an outstanding President,  I do not think that being a regular church-goer is an automatic indicator of being suited got the job nor is not being a regular church-goer an indicator of not being suited for the job.  When one considers what Benjamin Franklin accomplished for this country and he is well-known to not being a Christian,  it would seem that being religious is no indicator of being able to serve your country. Religion is for the soul, which is separate from the political realm. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> First lady Michelle Obama, on the other hand, has said: “We try to go to church as much as possible,” which, according to an analysis by Politico, has meant an average of just three Sundays a year during the Obama presidency, and only once on Christmas, in 2011.
> 
> Read more at http://www.youngcons.com/obama-not-...mas-presence-distracting/#vMzqpjF0igORgOZ8.99
> 
> Blow the dust off the KJV Barry,...and for once set it on top of the Koran. (Wow, mind blow!)



Why does this even matter to you?


----------



## Larry Gude

Amused_despair said:


> Seeing as how George Washington rarely attended church and was an outstanding President,  I do not think that being a regular church-goer is an automatic indicator of being suited got the job nor is not being a regular church-goer an indicator of not being suited for the job.  When one considers what Benjamin Franklin accomplished for this country and he is well-known to not being a Christian,  it would seem that being religious is no indicator of being able to serve your country. Religion is for the soul, which is separate from the political realm. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's.



We have a much more recent example of the value of being a good church going Christian and the impact on policy but, I'll just leave his name out for now. Upsets folks... What we want is symbols and a show. Not results.


----------



## b23hqb

Amused_despair said:


> Seeing as how George Washington rarely attended church and was an outstanding President,  I do not think that being a regular church-goer is an automatic indicator of being suited got the job nor is not being a regular church-goer an indicator of not being suited for the job.  When one considers what Benjamin Franklin accomplished for this country and he is well-known to not being a Christian,  it would seem that being religious is no indicator of being able to serve your country. Religion is for the soul, which is separate from the political realm. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's.



When Washington was at his home in Mt Vernon, he attended occasionally, but not regularly, according to his biographer. The two churches he did attend were seven and nine miles away, respectively. A pretty good road trip back in the day. 

"When traveling, particularly on political business, he was more likely to attend church services. In the seven Sundays during the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, he went to church on three, attending Anglican, Quaker, and Catholic services.[13] During his tours of the nation in his two terms as President, he attended religious services in each city, sometimes as frequently as three services in a day.[14]"

When he was in Philly or on the road, he was a frequent, some could say regular, attendee.

Saying that, the Bible defines how Christians should be, and that is around other like-minded believers, regularly, if not all the time. There is power and safety in numbers, and that is what Satan hates. That's why the Christian "church" or gatherings that put forth the light of the Gospel are persecuted, reviled, and ridiculed by so many around the world. 

Happy New Year, and attend your local Christian church.


----------



## Hessian

"Why does this even matter to you?"

Easy. A politician goes on public record, MANY times claiming to be a "Christian." 

A Christian is known by their fruit.
Praising Abortion as "God's work" is equivalent to praising Baal for consuming newborns in the flames.
Golfing endlessly while the faithful have gathered for worship is the behavior of a pagan.
Saying the Call to prayer from the muezzin is the sweetest sound he ever heard...is sign of adherence to Islam,...not Christianity.
Being married & attending a church that preaches division, class hatred, and anti-government radicalism ...has nothing to do with Christ.
Misquoting, and pretending to claim things from scripture that does not exist indicates a lack of knowledge about content & context of scripture.

So....our Pagan-in-Chief continues to Lie to Christians, mock Christian values....and has fooled perhaps millions of shallow, disconnected "Christians" into believing he holds the same faith. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing.

That is why it matters to me.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hessian said:


> "Why does this even matter to you?"
> 
> Easy. A politician goes on public record, MANY times claiming to be a "Christian."
> 
> A Christian is known by their fruit.
> Praising Abortion as "God's work" is equivalent to praising Baal for consuming newborns in the flames.
> Golfing endlessly while the faithful have gathered for worship is the behavior of a pagan.
> Saying the Call to prayer from the muezzin is the sweetest sound he ever heard...is sign of adherence to Islam,...not Christianity.
> Being married & attending a church that preaches division, class hatred, and anti-government radicalism ...has nothing to do with Christ.
> Misquoting, and pretending to claim things from scripture that does not exist indicates a lack of knowledge about content & context of scripture.
> 
> So....our Pagan-in-Chief continues to Lie to Christians, mock Christian values....and has fooled perhaps millions of shallow, disconnected "Christians" into believing he holds the same faith. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing.
> 
> That is why it matters to me.



Ok, but, a lying, mocking politician isn't anything new in general, correct? He's just noteworthy because he became president, right? So, how did he get there? I've long argued that President Bush and his decisions, the results of his policy, are what handed the WH to Obama. I mean, Obama certainly thinks so. He ran against Dubbya, not Hillary, not McCain. He all but ignored them both. I really don't think that is arguable, meaning, Bush's policies, the results, are why Obama won so, presuming you agree, and presuming we agree that Bush was a good, honest Christian, we then do reduce the debate down to Bush's policies being the reason some lying, mocking politician whose only other qualifications were that, as his vice president put it, 'clean and articulate'. 

How do you view, as a Christian, Med D, the TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, TARP and the losing of the wars? Do you think he did the right things, from a Christian view?


----------



## Hessian

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, but, a lying, mocking politician isn't anything new in general, correct? He's just noteworthy because he became president, right? So, how did he get there? I've long argued that President Bush and his decisions, the results of his policy, are what handed the WH to Obama. I mean, Obama certainly thinks so. He ran against Dubbya, not Hillary, not McCain. He all but ignored them both. I really don't think that is arguable, meaning, Bush's policies, the results, are why Obama won so, presuming you agree, and presuming we agree that Bush was a good, honest Christian, we then do reduce the debate down to Bush's policies being the reason some lying, mocking politician whose only other qualifications were that, as his vice president put it, 'clean and articulate'.
> 
> How do you view, as a Christian, Med D, the TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, TARP and the losing of the wars? Do you think he did the right things, from a Christian view?



Larry,
The policies & agencies created were at the behest of congressmen,...written, committee approved & bears the approval of both houses. The presidential approval was not blithely created by a phone & a pen. Do these policies infringe on Liberties...absolutely. Do they connect directly to the character of George Bush? Uncertain if you can make that connection. Did GW Bush claim a Christian foundation,...then promote policies that directly contradict Biblical values? I can't claim any recollection of this. He came out against abortion but did not vigorously address a means to end it. Leftists would accuse him of hundreds of thousands of innocent killed in "His" wars. I'll let God rule from his throne if GWB is a mass murderer (compared to OT instructions,...he aligns with one who confronts a dangerous tyrant who threatens his neighbors & pledges destruction against the Jews)

GWB did claim Christian faith? Yes.
Did he mock scripture. No
Did he praise other religions on par with Christianity?...He certainly misjudged Islam,...characterizing it as peaceful,...um, NO.
Did he lose wars?,...Larry: which ones are you referring to? Did he order troops to their deaths needlessly? You may think so.
Did he have compassion on needy? Yes. (of all races)

My opinion: He was NOT hypocritical, approved laws that expanded bureaucracy (which would have horrified our founders),but are NOT directly contradicting scripture.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hessian said:


> Larry,
> The policies & agencies created were at the behest of congressmen,...written, committee approved & bears the approval of both houses. The presidential approval was not blithely created by a phone & a pen. Do these policies infringe on Liberties...absolutely. Do they connect directly to the character of George Bush? Uncertain if you can make that connection. Did GW Bush claim a Christian foundation,...then promote policies that directly contradict Biblical values? I can't claim any recollection of this. He came out against abortion but did not vigorously address a means to end it. Leftists would accuse him of hundreds of thousands of innocent killed in "His" wars. I'll let God rule from his throne if GWB is a mass murderer (compared to OT instructions,...he aligns with one who confronts a dangerous tyrant who threatens his neighbors & pledges destruction against the Jews)
> 
> GWB did claim Christian faith? Yes.
> Did he mock scripture. No
> Did he praise other religions on par with Christianity?...He certainly misjudged Islam,...characterizing it as peaceful,...um, NO.
> Did he lose wars?,...Larry: which ones are you referring to? Did he order troops to their deaths needlessly? You may think so.
> Did he have no compassion on needy? Yes. (of all races)
> 
> My opinion: He was NOT hypocritical, approved laws that expanded bureaucracy (which would have horrified our founders),but are NOT directly contradicting scripture.



Do I have compassion? Hell, yes. I think we need to WIN wars. Get it over with and impose our will. We couldn't talk Germany or Japan into democracy. So, we impose it and brought light to parts of the world. I THOUGHT we were going to do the same in the Middle East. If we're not going to win...I think there is something terrible in that especially when, for us, it's not a matter of luck or hope. It is a matter of will. 

And you answered by question, that his leadership decisions were not the assault to your faith and sensibilities that Obama is. But, that leaves us stuck; in substance, their decisions are of a kind. Virtually identical really. Is it fair to say that what rubs you the wrong way then is not policy but, personal? I have no objections if that is so. My concern is results of policy and I claim no insight into whether Bush 43 made proper decisions in keeping with his faith. My problem is that they were not in keeping faith with his oath of office. 

Thanks for your thoughts! I'd really like us to avoid another Bush and Obama, as I see it, going forward and, to that end, the more we all understand one another, the more we at least have some common ground. I can set aside faith in keeping with the founders intent of religious freedom so, my issues are purely constitutional. To me, the two are of a kind where it matters.


----------



## Amused_despair

Hessian said:


> So....our Pagan-in-Chief continues to Lie to Christians, mock Christian values....



But, do not all Americans mock Christian values with our devotion to capitalism and materialism?  Do not all Americans mock Christian values with our desire for material wealth and valuing of material possessions instead of service to our fellow man?  What would Jesus do if he came back and saw us Americans in all of our wealth while people in our own country are hungry and sick, not to mention the rest of the world?  When we value our wealth more than we value following the teachings of Jesus do not all of us mock the values that Christ taught us?  I will not hastily judge one when that judgement could easily be applied to myself.


----------



## Hessian

Amused_despair said:


> But, do not all Americans mock Christian values with our devotion to capitalism and materialism?  Do not all Americans mock Christian values with our desire for material wealth and valuing of material possessions instead of service to our fellow man?  What would Jesus do if he came back and saw us Americans in all of our wealth while people in our own country are hungry and sick, not to mention the rest of the world?  When we value our wealth more than we value following the teachings of Jesus do not all of us mock the values that Christ taught us?  I will not hastily judge one when that judgement could easily be applied to myself.



Amused...are you throwing out some bait or do you honestly feel this way? You are obviously NOT an outsider throwing tangent anti-Christian accusations.

Christ tested the "rich young ruler" with the request to give away all his belongings. This "command" never became an orthodox practice of the church. The disciples were sent out in pairs to minister, but they were expected to return and report their results. When Paul & Barnabas went out,...they were sponsored by cells of believers who worked & collected tithes to support full time ministry. They attempted sharing all their possessions early in the book of Acts but that seems more like an answer to a refugee crisis. MUCH later it was lauded to take a vow of poverty but that solely applied to those in full Christian service.

SO...this brief overview supports the idea that full time Christian servants were expected to rely on the Lord's provision. All other Christians are expected to labor (as if under the Lord's supervision) and support the continued ministry of the church (missionaries, pastors, local needs).

Do we have Christian ministers living VERY comfortably,...relying on wealthy supporters in the church? Yes,...TOO MANY of them-of all races. Its disgraceful,...shaming the ministry.
But we also have many in Christian service who labor without regard to rewards...giving time & money faithfully.

Materialism HAS soaked into our church-undeniably,...but Christ's teaching certainly allows the workman to be worthy of their wages. BUT our true rewards are to be established in heaven,...where moth & rust do not destroy.


----------



## PsyOps

Hessian said:


> "Why does this even matter to you?"
> 
> Easy. A politician goes on public record, MANY times claiming to be a "Christian."
> 
> A Christian is known by their fruit.
> Praising Abortion as "God's work" is equivalent to praising Baal for consuming newborns in the flames.
> Golfing endlessly while the faithful have gathered for worship is the behavior of a pagan.
> Saying the Call to prayer from the muezzin is the sweetest sound he ever heard...is sign of adherence to Islam,...not Christianity.
> Being married & attending a church that preaches division, class hatred, and anti-government radicalism ...has nothing to do with Christ.
> Misquoting, and pretending to claim things from scripture that does not exist indicates a lack of knowledge about content & context of scripture.
> 
> So....our Pagan-in-Chief continues to Lie to Christians, mock Christian values....and has fooled perhaps millions of shallow, disconnected "Christians" into believing he holds the same faith. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing.
> 
> That is why it matters to me.



Would you prefer he go to church every Sunday knowing full-well he is only doing it for appearances?  Which lie do you prefer from this president?  The people elected him TWICE and don’t care.  Why blame Obama for these things?  Blame voters.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Would you prefer he go to church every Sunday knowing full-well he is only doing it for appearances?  Which lie do you prefer from this president?  The people elected him TWICE and don’t care.  Why blame Obama for these things?  Blame voters.



Why blame voters? Christians didn't vote for him?


----------



## PrchJrkr

PsyOps said:


> Would you prefer he go to church every Sunday knowing full-well he is only doing it for appearances?



I only speak for myself, but I would feel a whole lot better about him if he did seek Christian Fellowship. You can't learn to swim standing on the shore.


----------



## Larry Gude

PrchJrkr said:


> I only speak for myself, but I would feel a whole lot better about him if he did seek Christian Fellowship. You can't learn to swim standing on the shore.



See and there is nothing wrong about that. it really should be a part of any presidents activities. Just like he /she would reach out to minority groups, unions, business groups, other nations. 

Just be respectful of the faith.


----------



## PsyOps

PrchJrkr said:


> I only speak for myself, but I would feel a whole lot better about him if he did seek Christian Fellowship. You can't learn to swim standing on the shore.



First you have to want to learn how to swim.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Why blame voters? Christians didn't vote for him?



Says who?


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Says who?



Not so? Many Christians did vote for him?


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> Not so? Many Christians did vote for him?



I'll say many people who call themselves "Christians" did vote for him. However, I know lots of practicing Christians, that regularly attend Christian services, and believe, and live to the best of our abilities, what the Bible preaches, that did NOT vote for the obama either time. Here's a good piece and chart on how the "Christian" vote turned out:

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/

I and mine fall in the born again/evangelical column.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Not so? Many Christians did vote for him?



You do realize the black community is by-and-large Christian?  Hispanics?


----------



## PsyOps

b23hqb said:


> I'll say many people who call themselves "Christians" did vote for him. However, I know lots of practicing Christians, that regularly attend Christian services, and believe, and live to the best of our abilities, what the Bible preaches, that did NOT vote for the obama either time. Here's a good piece and chart on how the "Christian" vote turned out:
> 
> http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/
> 
> I and mine fall in the born again/evangelical column.



This discussion is really moot... This all hinges on who we believe is really Christian and who isn't.  You can only go on what people say they are.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> You do realize the black community is by-and-large Christian?  Hispanics?



And the black 'community' is, what, 9% of the active electorate? 12% of the population? Barack Obama does not get elected because of Christians. Not even close. And that was the point.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> And the black 'community' is, what, 9% of the active electorate? 12% of the population? Barack Obama does not get elected because of Christians. Not even close. And that was the point.



You asked if many Christians did vote for Obama and I stipulated that they did.  :shrug:

FWIW:

Forty million Christians voted for Obama



> It turns out Obama attracted about 40 million votes from Americans who are Protestant or Catholic. That’s one third of the nearly 120 million Americans who voted in the 2012 presidential race.



Evangelicals put Obama over the top



> Pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Barack Obama lost among white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics. Nevertheless, more than 21 percent of the self-described “evangelicals” voted to re-elect this president, and that was enough to put Obama comfortably over the top.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> You asked if many Christians did vote for Obama and I stipulated that they did.  :shrug: ]



The question was whether or not Christians put him in office, ie, were the deciding factor and, clearly, they were not.


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> The question was whether or not Christians put him in office, ie, were the deciding factor and, clearly, they were not.



Gotta agree with you there. Blacks make up about 14.2% of the population (about 45 million), probably about 10-11% of the voting public. Throw in the 90% of black christians that voted for obama against their religious teachings, and strictly on color, and the 20% of so called born again evangelicals (I know a few in our group, elderly, and have always voted (D) just because their parents did, but they won't admit it), and the around 50% of Catholics, they didn't necessarily put him over the top, but it was enough to edge out Romney.

Obama carried considerably less "christian" votes in 2012, but it was still enough to outpoll Romney

People have to learn that their votes do count, and christians have to understand they either believe what they say they are, or they don't.


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> You asked if many Christians did vote for Obama and I stipulated that they did.  :shrug:
> 
> FWIW:
> 
> Forty million Christians voted for Obama
> 
> ​
> Evangelicals put Obama over the top
> 
> ​



Good article about the evangelicals. I especially like the sentence near the end about so many "playing church". That has been my point for decades about peeps that call themselves "christians" but certainly show no evidence of it. The way many of them vote is convincing to me they are hypocrites.


----------



## Hessian

Good analysis...

Pelosi...Catholic?
Reid...Mormon?

Just convenient labels that mean nothing...and most religious leaders give them a pass too. None are willing to Confront. Excommunicate. Heck Pastor Rick Warren gave him a beaming thumbs up years ago...has he ever said he was wrong?....Um Pastor,...you were shallow & blind. Good job.

"Christian" Blacks voted based on color,...not the core tenets of their faith. I do not know what would wake them up other than MLK coming back from the grave.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Good analysis...
> 
> Pelosi...Catholic?
> Reid...Mormon?
> 
> Just convenient labels that mean nothing...and most religious leaders give them a pass too. None are willing to Confront. Excommunicate. Heck Pastor Rick Warren gave him a beaming thumbs up years ago...has he ever said he was wrong?....Um Pastor,...you were shallow & blind. Good job.
> 
> "Christian" Blacks voted based on color,...not the core tenets of their faith. I do not know what would wake them up other than MLK coming back from the grave.



In your judgment, what does one have to do to demonstrate their "Christianity" to your satisfaction?


----------



## Hessian

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> In your judgment, what does one have to do to demonstrate their "Christianity" to your satisfaction?



Instead of writing it out....
1) Apostle's Creed
2) Nicean Creed
3) Augsburg or Heidelburg confession...even Westminster Catechism. (There are slight differences but they should not stir up the faithful)

its not really a matter of "my" satisfaction....I didn't make up my own version. It is the orthodox version of traditional, Bible-based faith.
Not Social gospel, unitarian, universalist, new age, etc. One is NOT born Christian,...one does NOT become a Christian by joining a church or attending 3 times a year, or donating money to the Knights of Columbus...or owning a KJV Bible...or being "good".... or being sprinkled as an infant.---NONE of that makes a Christian.


----------



## Radiant1

Christianity existed before the bible did; ergo, "bible-based faith" is not traditional in any real sense of the word, and the Heidelburg Confession wasn't written until **1563**. CleanTheSlate, don't let him fool you. It really does come down to his satisfaction in his mind, but I suspect you already knew that.




I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't hold it against him for his lack of church service attendance. I will, however, hold it against him if he doesn't uphold the Constitution. He's our president, not our preacher.


----------



## Hessian

Radiant,...it is not about dates.
It is about orthodoxy.

I count a few Catholics as close friends,...have deep admiration for a local Lutheran minister, have been a member of Baptist, Grace Brethren, Presbyterian churches, married a Pentecostal. SO>>>> what it really comes down to is the core tenets of Christianity. Minor disagreements? yes,....but EACH of those denominations have a statement of faith, and an expected practice of said faith. If one claims to believe, and then pursues other beliefs, or disregards God's teachings, misinterprets scripture, or mocks the faithful...he/she is a heretic, and CANNOT legitimately claim to be a Christian.

JPC and obama have the same bemused view of Christianity. And both are heretics.


----------



## Radiant1

Hessian said:


> Radiant,...it is not about dates.
> It is about orthodoxy.
> 
> I count a few Catholics as close friends,...have deep admiration for a local Lutheran minister, have been a member of Baptist, Grace Brethren, Presbyterian churches, married a Pentecostal. SO>>>> what it really comes down to is the core tenets of Christianity. Minor disagreements? yes,....but EACH of those denominations have a statement of faith, and an expected practice of said faith. If one claims to believe, and then pursues other beliefs, or disregards God's teachings, misinterprets scripture, or mocks the faithful...he/she is a heretic, and CANNOT legitimately claim to be a Christian.
> 
> JPC and obama have the same bemused view of Christianity. And both are heretics.



It's your listing of the Augsburg Confession et al that I take issue with. We could get into who determines what is orthodoxy and what is or is not a misrepresentation of scripture, but that's been done to death on this forum. Suffice it to say, I think who you deem a Christian or not is indeed a matter of your personal satisfaction. And on that, I'll say no more.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> The question was whether or not Christians put him in office, ie, were the deciding factor and, clearly, they were not.



No, I was answering to your comments:



Larry Gude said:


> Why blame voters? Christians didn't vote for him?





Larry Gude said:


> Not so? Many Christians did vote for him?



One of my sources stated that 40 million Christians voted for Obama.  Had those not have voted for him he would have certainly lost.


----------



## Hessian

PsyOps said:


> No, I was answering to your comments:
> 
> 
> One of my sources stated that 40 million Christians voted for Obama.  Had those not have voted for him he would have certainly lost.



If those 40 million "Christians" actually did their civic duty by studying the man's behavior, speeches, interviews, and associates (ie Dreams of my Father)...they would vote him solely based on naive wishful thinking, or race, or an actual desire to damage America's reputation, economics, leadership. They honestly could NOT endorse a candidate of such sketchy reputation.

AND ministers who glad-handed this impostor should consider resigning or at least explaining in depth why they were so easily deceived.

Christians who stayed home in 2012 could have voted Constitution party, Pro Life party, or at least pull the lever for Men/Women of Godly character and thus have a larger impact on the legislatures & governor races. They were lazy, and wasteful with a privilege that was earned on their behalf.


----------



## Hessian

Now,...I have a long term friend who is a believer, active in church, etc...and firmly supports obama.

On what grounds?

A hazy belief that government should meet the needs of all its citizens. And since obama promised Hope & Change,...he fell for it. Stupidly, he & his family did it again in 2012 because  of the fear of those "Corporate" Wall St Republicans who do not care for all the little people.

So, Mr Pro-Liberal Christian,....how do you align Christ's endorsement of LIFE with the Pro-Death obama? (Who praises Planned Parenthood for doing such good work)
How do you align with Government Socialist redistribution  instead of aligning with the benevolence of the Church?
How do you justify the racist rants of obama's pastor? and he soaked it in for 20 years?
How do you accept his non-attendance of church for the first 4 years of his "presidency" while vacationing & golfing as the economy was faltering?
How about his reputation for lying?...Bother you at all?

So,...my Liberal Christian friend (currently mourning the loss of Cuomo) blithely brushes by all these objections with a innocent "He means well"...or 'We all have faults."...or equally bizarre "He is a good family man."

REALLY?...What a fascinating detachment from actually living by faith, and an endorsement of Machiavelli & J S Mill.


----------



## b23hqb

Hessian said:


> Now,...I have a long term friend who is a believer, active in church, etc...and firmly supports obama.
> 
> On what grounds?
> 
> A hazy belief that government should meet the needs of all its citizens. And since obama promised Hope & Change,...he fell for it. Stupidly, he & his family did it again in 2012 because  of the fear of those "Corporate" Wall St Republicans who do not care for all the little people.
> 
> So, Mr Pro-Liberal Christian,....how do you align Christ's endorsement of LIFE with the Pro-Death obama? (Who praises Planned Parenthood for doing such good work)
> How do you align with Government Socialist redistribution  instead of aligning with the benevolence of the Church?
> How do you justify the racist rants of obama's pastor? and he soaked it in for 20 years?
> How do you accept his non-attendance of church for the first 4 years of his "presidency" while vacationing & golfing as the economy was faltering?
> How about his reputation for lying?...Bother you at all?
> 
> So,...my Liberal Christian friend (currently mourning the loss of Cuomo) blithely brushes by all these objections with a innocent "He means well"...or 'We all have faults."...or equally bizarre "He is a good family man."
> 
> REALLY?...What a fascinating detachment from actually living by faith, and an endorsement of Machiavelli & J S Mill.



They, these so called "christians" do not believe in what they claim to be. Ignorance is what got Obama reelected. Ignorance in so many Protestants not voting at all is what got obama reelected.

The "christian" voting block, on an individual level, is to blame. Those so called "christians" need to fess up.

Christians have met the enemy. And they are us.


----------



## Larry Gude

Question to anyone who cares to respond;

Do you consider yourself an American first and a Christian second?

Or do you consider yourself a Christian first, an American second?


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> Question to anyone who cares to respond;
> 
> Do you consider yourself an American first and a Christian second?
> 
> Or do you consider yourself a Christian first, an American second?



Christian first - that is eternity.

American/US citizen second - that is merely temporal.


----------



## hotcoffee

b23hqb said:


> Christian first - that is eternity.
> 
> American/US citizen second - that is merely temporal.



Me too!  Christian first!

Daddy use to tell us .... It's God... then family.... then country....


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> Christian first - that is eternity.
> 
> American/US citizen second - that is merely temporal.



Merely temporal. 


Absent the United States, how is Christianity doing around the world?


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> Merely temporal.
> 
> 
> Absent the United States, how is Christianity doing around the world?



No doubt there are countries that are stronger Christians as a whole than in the US, specifically China and India, where persecution, real persecution like death in the most horrible ways and incarceration, is a way of life for them. I've heard from missionaries in those countries that there is no doubt that there are more born again Christians in each of those countries alone than in North America. Africa is thriving as well, and news reports from the last decade show the persecution they face on a daily basis.

The Bible states clearly that one "must be born again" to achieve salvation. Sadly, Europe as a whole, and much of North America, do not fall into that category. I know that is off topic, but really not.


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> No doubt there are countries that are stronger Christians as a whole than in the US, specifically China and India, where persecution, real persecution like death in the most horrible ways and incarceration, is a way of life for them. I've heard from missionaries in those countries that there is no doubt that there are more born again Christians in each of those countries alone than in North America. Africa is thriving as well, and news reports from the last decade show the persecution they face on a daily basis.
> 
> The Bible states clearly that one "must be born again" to achieve salvation. Sadly, Europe as a whole, and much of North America, do not fall into that category. I know that is off topic, but really not.



No, that's on topic. My premise is that the US is the cornerstone of Christianity in the world and perhaps I am totally wrong, that Christianity would be better off without the US and our foundation of religious freedom.


----------



## Bustem' Down

Larry Gude said:


> No, that's on topic. My premise is that the US is the cornerstone of Christianity in the world and perhaps I am totally wrong, that Christianity would be better off without the US and our foundation of religious freedom.



I believe most western countries have religious freedom, so we aren't that special in that regard anymore.


----------



## b23hqb

Bustem' Down said:


> I believe most western countries have religious freedom, so we aren't that special in that regard anymore.



Especially countries in Europe that are allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia. See how freedom of religion is working there? The majority caves into the minority, and lose their rights of religion by being told what they can say, believe, and stand up for, except for concerning Islam. Islam trumps all.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Question to anyone who cares to respond;
> 
> Do you consider yourself an American first and a Christian second?
> 
> Or do you consider yourself a Christian first, an American second?



There is no America without God.  God has to be first.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> No, that's on topic. My premise is that the US is the cornerstone of Christianity in the world and perhaps I am totally wrong, that Christianity would be better off without the US and our foundation of religious freedom.



That would stand against what I believe God intended... If God didn't want religious freedom He would force everyone to believe.


----------



## hotcoffee

I saw a bumper sticker today..... on the way home.... it said "God is too big for just one religion!"  I like that...


----------



## Amused_despair

PsyOps said:


> There is no America without God.  God has to be first.



America is not God's chosen people, no matter how much we want to believe that.  Our country started off by forcibly taking land from other people, and then went on to enslave a portion of its own people.  Does this seem like something Jesus would want his name attached to?  America was and still is a safe haven for others to escape to from their own lands so that they may worship as they see fit, or not worship.  The only time we allowed religion to govern us, we burned people for being witches.  God needs to be in your soul, guiding your actions, not a political force to force others to do as you think they should.  It is easy to be a Christian when everyone around you is one, the hard part is when to be one means your head will be removed from your shoulders.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> Especially countries in Europe that are allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia. See how freedom of religion is working there? The majority caves into the minority, and lose their rights of religion by being told what they can say, believe, and stand up for, except for concerning Islam. Islam trumps all.



Which countries in Europe are "allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia?"


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Which countries in Europe are "allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia?"



Are you kidding? England, France, Sweden, Germany. Sweden is being overrun with more than 100,000 Muslims each year, and growing. France has entire areas in and around cities where the local police are not even allowed into. England, and now Sweden, have laws about what you can say to or even about Islam. And don't forget our immediate neighbors to the great white north. Dearborn, Michigan as well.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4339/sweden-muslims
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/...minalize-any-criticism-of-muslim-immigration/
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/April/Native-French-under-Attack-in-Muslim-Areas/
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4120/islamization-france
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...elines-on-sharia-compliant-wills-9210682.html
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/08/sharia-set-off-alarms-in-canada-check-the-facts/

Countless other links, articles, etc.


I guess you've been asleep for a few decades, Mr. Van Winkle.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> Are you kidding? England, France, Sweden, Germany. Sweden is being overrun with more than 100,000 Muslims each year, and growing. France has entire areas in and around cities where the local police are not even allowed into. England, and now Sweden, have laws about what you can say to or even about Islam. And don't forget our immediate neighbors to the great white north. Dearborn, Michigan as well.
> 
> http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4339/sweden-muslims
> http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/...minalize-any-criticism-of-muslim-immigration/
> http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/April/Native-French-under-Attack-in-Muslim-Areas/
> http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4120/islamization-france
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...elines-on-sharia-compliant-wills-9210682.html
> http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/08/sharia-set-off-alarms-in-canada-check-the-facts/
> 
> Countless other links, articles, etc.
> 
> 
> I guess you've been asleep for a few decades, Mr. Van Winkle.



We can start with debunking your claim about Dearborn, MI.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...rep-leo-berman-says-judges-dearborn-michigan/


----------



## Hessian

b23hqb said:


> Are you kidding? England, France, Sweden, Germany. Sweden is being overrun with more than 100,000 Muslims each year, and growing. France has entire areas in and around cities where the local police are not even allowed into. England, and now Sweden, have laws about what you can say to or even about Islam. And don't forget our immediate neighbors to the great white north. Dearborn, Michigan as well.
> 
> http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4339/sweden-muslims
> http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/...minalize-any-criticism-of-muslim-immigration/
> http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/April/Native-French-under-Attack-in-Muslim-Areas/
> http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4120/islamization-france
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...elines-on-sharia-compliant-wills-9210682.html
> http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/08/sharia-set-off-alarms-in-canada-check-the-facts/
> 
> Countless other links, articles, etc.
> 
> 
> I guess you've been asleep for a few decades, Mr. Van Winkle.



Thanks for doing the homework b23hqb...The demographic collapse of Europe is statistically irreversible in in at least three countries. Tragic. Fine wines, Fine art, entertainment,---all obilterated under the oppression of of Neo-fascism called islam. Meanwhile...the nay sayers have NO clue what is happening right in front of them, and what will happen within 20 years. (And just for fun, they will have 100% access to nukes & missile technology,...taken by demographic surge.)


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Thanks for doing the homework b23hqb...The demographic collapse of Europe is statistically irreversible in in at least three countries. Tragic. Fine wines, Fine art, entertainment,---all obilterated under the oppression of of Neo-fascism called islam. Meanwhile...the nay sayers have NO clue what is happening right in front of them, and what will happen within 20 years. (And just for fun, they will have 100% access to nukes & missile technology,...taken by demographic surge.)



KEEP FEAR ALIVE!!! It is the life blood of the religious right!


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> America is not God's chosen people, no matter how much we want to believe that.  Our country started off by forcibly taking land from other people, and then went on to enslave a portion of its own people.  Does this seem like something Jesus would want his name attached to?  America was and still is a safe haven for others to escape to from their own lands so that they may worship as they see fit, or not worship.  The only time we allowed religion to govern us, we burned people for being witches.  God needs to be in your soul, guiding your actions, not a political force to force others to do as you think they should.  It is easy to be a Christian when everyone around you is one, the hard part is when to be one means your head will be removed from your shoulders.



You’re misinterpreting what I posted.  In the larger scheme, nothing exists without God.  Anyone who believes is God’s chosen people; anywhere in the world.  Much has been done in the name of God/Jesus that I can’t subscribe to as good or bad; they just are.  God allows things to happen; He doesn’t dictate our actions.  That’s why I posted that God supports religious FREEDOM, because He is not up there pulling strings and forcing people to believe.  We are free to do as we want.  It’s just there will be consequences.  So make your choices carefully.  How does this play into the founding of this country?  There isn’t a person alive today that can be called responsible for the brutality that occurred in the founding of this country.  We were all either born into this ‘new land’ or migrated here long after it happened.  History is written and can’t be changed.  Live with it and do good with what you have.


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> We can start with debunking your claim about Dearborn, MI.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...rep-leo-berman-says-judges-dearborn-michigan/



Who said there was Shiria law in Dearborn? I didn't. It is a huge enclave where many there desire their own state of Islam, and at the rate things are going they will eventually achieve it because of PC and cowardice of elected officials.

Where's your next starting point?


----------



## Larry Gude

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> KEEP FEAR ALIVE!!! It is the life blood of the religious right!



Do you fear Islam? Sharia?


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Larry Gude said:


> Do you fear Islam? Sharia?



No.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Thanks for doing the homework b23hqb...The demographic collapse of Europe is statistically irreversible in in at least three countries. Tragic. Fine wines, Fine art, entertainment,---all obilterated under the oppression of of Neo-fascism called islam. Meanwhile...the nay sayers have NO clue what is happening right in front of them, and what will happen within 20 years. (And just for fun, they will have 100% access to nukes & missile technology,...taken by demographic surge.)



What do you think we need to do about this perceived threat? Declare war on Islam? Onward Christian soldiers? Convert to Christianity or else? Christianity has it's own dark history of oppression, brutality, and torture. 

I don't subscribe to any religion, but I respect everyone's right to believe what they want to believe, as long as they can do it peacefully, without threatening those who choose not to embrace their specific faith or god. 

Religious intolerance is the real threat to this planet.


----------



## Gilligan

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Christianity has it's own dark history of oppression, brutality, and torture.



Well that makes me feel a LOT better.  As long as there are historical parallels (what was done in the name of Christianity centuries ago) to the atrocities that Islamists are perpetrating all over the world right now, I'm OK with it.

Aren't moral equivalencies great?


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Gilligan said:


> Well that makes me feel a LOT better.  As long as there are historical parallels (what was done in the name of Christianity centuries ago) to the atrocities that Islamists are perpetrating all over the world right now, I'm OK with it.
> 
> Aren't moral equivalencies great?



A sense of moral superiority is where the problems start; when one religion thinks they're morally superior to another, or that their god is greater than the other's.


----------



## Gilligan

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> A sense of moral superiority is where the problems start; when one religion thinks they're morally superior to another, or that their god is greater than the other's.



What does that have to do with the logical fallacy known as the "moral equivalence"?  Or why so many Islamists are out committing violent acts every day against innocent people...women and children included?


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> What do you think we need to do about this perceived threat? Declare war on Islam? Onward Christian soldiers? Convert to Christianity or else? Christianity has it's own dark history of oppression, brutality, and torture.
> 
> I don't subscribe to any religion, but I respect everyone's right to believe what they want to believe, as long as they can do it peacefully, without threatening those who choose not to embrace their specific faith or god.
> 
> Religious intolerance is the real threat to this planet.



*"as long as they can do it peacefully, without threatening those who choose not to embrace their specific faith or god."*

Quite a statement on your part. Now if you could just state some fact about the Islam that dominates the Muslim world right now that supports your thought on them doing it peacefully, without threatening those who choose not to embrace their specific faith, i.e., Islam......?

Show me anywhere where anyone stated, beside yourself, of course, "convert to Christianity or else?" That is a tenant, a pillar of Islam, BTW. Muslim or bust.

Past historical fact, the Koran itself, coupled with ongoing current events, seem to have conveniently slipped by you.

Ignorance is self inflected, you know. It's not a handicap. You're prominently displaying it.


----------



## Larry Gude

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> No.



Are you Muslim?


----------



## Amused_despair

The thing about Islamists is that in order for them to be a threat to other countries they need backing from a country.  These groups do not operate in a vacuum.  we depend on our government to keep our country safe form threats, it is one of the reasons we pay taxes.  Unfortunately our government does not always keep us safe and these groups are able to threaten us, attack us, even subvert our culture to some extent.  When 9/11 happened we attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were they were operating from, but left alone their financial and philosophical backers in Saudi Arabia.  if over 90% of the members of a group that attacked Riyadh were Americans, even if they were operating out of the Bahamas, do you think the Arab world would blame the Bahamas or the USA?  But what does our country do?  It ends up attacking Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no means of attacking us.  Saddam was our best weapon against terrorists operating in Iraq, but we got Colin Powell to go on TV talking about mobile factories of mass destruction weapons and other nonsense that our government either knew was false or at least had suspicions about, and ended up miring us in a war that has played havoc with our military.  Sort of like when Iraq attacked one of our naval vessels in the Persian Gulf so we attacked Iran.

As long as we keep the separations between church and state that are part of our governing documents strong than we have little to worry about Islam becoming to law of the land here.  But it requires people to stand up and voice their opposition when the government does not do its duty to protect the rights of its citizens.  If we start to make exceptions for Christianity in the governing of our country we open the door for the same exceptions to be made for Islam.  Sort of like how we fight against restrictions being made on the ownership of assault rifles because that would open the door to restrictions on the rights to bear arms in general.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> *"as long as they can do it peacefully, without threatening those who choose not to embrace their specific faith or god."*
> 
> Quite a statement on your part. Now if you could just state some fact about the Islam that dominates the Muslim world right now that supports your thought on them doing it peacefully, without threatening those who choose not to embrace their specific faith, i.e., Islam......?
> 
> Show me anywhere where anyone stated, beside yourself, of course, "convert to Christianity or else?" That is a tenant, a pillar of Islam, BTW. Muslim or bust.
> 
> Past historical fact, the Koran itself, coupled with ongoing current events, seem to have conveniently slipped by you.
> 
> Ignorance is self inflected, you know. It's not a handicap. You're prominently displaying it.



I was asking what the alternative is to religious tolerance. If subscribers to Christianity and Islam cannot tolerate one another's faith, then what is the solution?  

I think much of the religious world is handicapped by self-inflicted fear and ignorance. When you go through life in fear that you'll be condemned to an imagined eternal hell if you don't think or believe in a religiously prescribed fashion dictated by other humans, that is a true handicap. Gods did not write the bible or Koran; humans did. These books have since been translated, re-translated, interpreted, and re-interpreted by humans to meet human agendas.


----------



## Gilligan

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> I was asking what the alternative is to religious tolerance. *If subscribers to* Christianity and *Islam cannot tolerate one another's faith,* *then what is the solution?*
> 
> .



Jihad. Obviously.


----------



## PsyOps

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> No.



So, you would welcome Islamic Jihad in your neighborhood?


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> I was asking what the alternative is to religious tolerance. If subscribers to Christianity and Islam cannot tolerate one another's faith, then what is the solution?
> 
> I think much of the religious world is handicapped by self-inflicted fear and ignorance. When you go through life in fear that you'll be condemned to an imagined eternal hell if you don't think or believe in a religiously prescribed fashion dictated by other humans, that is a true handicap. Gods did not write the bible or Koran; humans did. These books have since been translated, re-translated, interpreted, and re-interpreted by humans to meet human agendas.



Show me some Christians that are committing these heinous crimes today, show me other religions that have not turned the other cheek hundreds of times in the last decade concerning Islam. Please? your whining of something like "why can't we all just get along and tolerate each other?" is kind of lost on the muslim ear that is hell bent on jihad, don't you think?


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Show me some Christians that are committing these heinous crimes today, show me other religions that have not turned the other cheek hundreds of times in the last decade concerning Islam. Please? your whining of something like "why can't we all just get along and tolerate each other?" is kind of lost on the muslim ear that is hell bent on jihad, don't you think?



But, how many times should we turn the other cheek?


----------



## Hessian

So...steering it back toward the origin of the discussion...

How do "strict separation" people feel about obama allowing funds to rebuild muslim sites, but nothing to protect other sites (ie Hindu/Christian/Buddhist?)
How about new restrictions on chaplains in the military praying in Christ's name,...but encouraging more mullahs,...or even satanists?

obama is 100%in favor of screwing up morale, squandering our funds, and providing aid & comfort to the enemy. (All under the guise of his religion).

*****************
I do not quite know how to deal with leftist who throw out these odd arguments that "everybody should just be left alone"...or Islam is "misunderstood" ...or "Our actions just create more hostitlity, which creates more terrorists"....

The "Coexist" crowd who are so naive,...thinking that we need to open a dialogue, try to understand them,..."Up with People" crap.
Do they think this is some sort of charade?  A shallow little game? Do they think that islam will disarm & return to Krapistan once we pledge not to defend ourselves? Do they not see the islamization of Europe and what the natural outcome will be in just 10-15 years?...Because of this bizzaro world that they have accepted as reality,...others will have to fight as long as possible to allow home-grown islamophiles to continue living in their bubble,...while blaming all the world's problems on a "misunderstanding" and a lack of cultural appreciation.

Don't know what would rattle their world...a bombing in DC? A Starbucks hostage crisis? muslims lighting fires to our western forests (like Jihadists recommended)?
Certainly logic & facts don't seem to have any effect on them. (Post-Modern much?)


----------



## mamatutu

Hessian said:


> So...steering it back toward the origin of the discussion...
> 
> How do "strict separation" people feel about obama allowing funds to rebuild muslim sites, but nothing to protect other sites (ie Hindu/Christian/Buddhist?)
> How about new restrictions on chaplains in the military praying in Christ's name,...but encouraging more mullahs,...or even satanists?
> 
> obama is 100%in favor of screwing up morale, squandering our funds, and providing aid & comfort to the enemy. (All under the guise of his religion).
> 
> *****************
> I do not quite know how to deal with leftist who throw out these odd arguments that "everybody should just be left alone"...or Islam is "misunderstood" ...or "Our actions just create more hostitlity, which creates more terrorists"....
> 
> The "Coexist" crowd who are so naive,...thinking that we need to open a dialogue, try to understand them,..."Up with People" crap.
> Do they think this is some sort of charade?  A shallow little game? Do they think that islam will disarm & return to Krapistan once we pledge not to defend ourselves? Do they not see the islamization of Europe and what the natural outcome will be in just 10-15 years?...Because of this bizzaro world that they have accepted as reality,...others will have to fight as long as possible to allow home-grown islamophiles to continue living in their bubble,...while blaming all the world's problems on a "misunderstanding" and a lack of cultural appreciation.
> 
> Don't know what would rattle their world...a bombing in DC? A Starbucks hostage crisis? muslims lighting fires to our western forests (like Jihadists recommended)?
> Certainly logic & facts don't seem to have any effect on them. (Post-Modern much?)



:like:


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> So...steering it back toward the origin of the discussion...
> 
> How do "strict separation" people feel about obama allowing funds to rebuild muslim sites, but nothing to protect other sites (ie Hindu/Christian/Buddhist?)
> How about new restrictions on chaplains in the military praying in Christ's name,...but encouraging more mullahs,...or even satanists?
> 
> obama is 100%in favor of screwing up morale, squandering our funds, and providing aid & comfort to the enemy. (All under the guise of his religion).
> 
> *****************
> I do not quite know how to deal with leftist who throw out these odd arguments that "everybody should just be left alone"...or Islam is "misunderstood" ...or "Our actions just create more hostitlity, which creates more terrorists"....
> 
> The "Coexist" crowd who are so naive,...thinking that we need to open a dialogue, try to understand them,..."Up with People" crap.
> Do they think this is some sort of charade?  A shallow little game? Do they think that islam will disarm & return to Krapistan once we pledge not to defend ourselves? Do they not see the islamization of Europe and what the natural outcome will be in just 10-15 years?...Because of this bizzaro world that they have accepted as reality,...others will have to fight as long as possible to allow home-grown islamophiles to continue living in their bubble,...while blaming all the world's problems on a "misunderstanding" and a lack of cultural appreciation.
> 
> Don't know what would rattle their world...a bombing in DC? A Starbucks hostage crisis? muslims lighting fires to our western forests (like Jihadists recommended)?
> Certainly logic & facts don't seem to have any effect on them. (Post-Modern much?)



Do you have a solution?


----------



## Hessian

Commercial Break!

http://viral.buzz/video-muslim-mob-vandalizes-christian-and-jewish-wwii-tombstones/

coming to a community near you!


----------



## Hessian

*Solution Part 1*

Islam must stop being considered a religion....

It is a neo fascist movement, oppressive to women, dividing races, and rests on physical & emotional abuse.
If civil laws were fairly applied, mullahs & muslim bullies would be arrested, charged, fined, separated from their followers.

NEXT:
 All "student" visas slashed and all illegal aliens expelled.

Financial support for muslim countries that our INTEL communities have revealed as hosting jihadist cells....Zero the balance. Not another dime.

States must pass laws saying that Sharia law will NOT be considered in court rulings, and that police will not accommodate shariah dictates...ever.

Muslim mullahs & teachers are not permitted as chaplains in prisons.
just a start...


----------



## b23hqb

Hessian said:


> Commercial Break!
> 
> http://viral.buzz/video-muslim-mob-vandalizes-christian-and-jewish-wwii-tombstones/
> 
> coming to a community near you!



I nominate CleanTheSlate to negotiate a face to face peace offering with these grave desecraters' of people that have been dead for 70 years!


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Islam must stop being considered a religion....
> 
> It is a neo fascist movement, oppressive to women, dividing races, and rests on physical & emotional abuse.
> If civil laws were fairly applied, mullahs & muslim bullies would be arrested, charged, fined, separated from their followers.
> 
> NEXT:
> All "student" visas slashed and all illegal aliens expelled.
> 
> Financial support for muslim countries that our INTEL communities have revealed as hosting jihadist cells....Zero the balance. Not another dime.
> 
> States must pass laws saying that Sharia law will NOT be considered in court rulings, and that police will not accommodate shariah dictates...ever.
> 
> Muslim mullahs & teachers are not permitted as chaplains in prisons.
> just a start...



"Islam must stop being considered a religion" That's quite a first step! There are 1.6B Muslims, so you certainly have your work cut out for you! I guess you could start by amending the Wikipedia definition of Islam.

What civil laws would you invoke to arrest the mullahs? Would you also discharge the Muslims serving in the US Armed Forces? The Pentagon (I have seen Muslim civilians praying in the chapel)? You should read Mein Kampf to get some ideas on enacting your plan to rid the world of Islam.


----------



## Gilligan

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> You should read Mein Kampf to get some ideas on enacting your plan to rid the world of Islam.



The Muslims have *far* more instructions in print right now on how to rid the world of us infidels and apostates. Does that mean they win?  LOL.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> "Islam must stop being considered a religion" That's quite a first step! There are 1.6B Muslims, so you certainly have your work cut out for you! I guess you could start by amending the Wikipedia definition of Islam.
> 
> What civil laws would you invoke to arrest the mullahs? Would you also discharge the Muslims serving in the US Armed Forces? The Pentagon (I have seen Muslim civilians praying in the chapel)? You should read Mein Kampf to get some ideas on enacting your plan to rid the world of Islam.



...and, of course, you will need to get those pesky 1st and 14th Amendments amended to exclude Islam as a religion.  Perhaps you should also ban any religion whose leaders commit rape of children. 

Good luck with your ambitious ideas to make the world a better place!


----------



## Hessian

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> "Islam must stop being considered a religion" That's quite a first step! There are 1.6B Muslims, so you certainly have your work cut out for you! I guess you could start by amending the Wikipedia definition of Islam.
> 
> What civil laws would you invoke to arrest the mullahs? Would you also discharge the Muslims serving in the US Armed Forces? The Pentagon (I have seen Muslim civilians praying in the chapel)? You should read Mein Kampf to get some ideas on enacting your plan to rid the world of Islam.



Yep,...waste of time dealing with people who have NO clue of what is coming down the road....Goodnight Neville.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Yep,...waste of time dealing with people who have NO clue of what is coming down the road....Goodnight Neville.



When islamic jihad breaks out in Wildewood, I'll remember you warned me...
Gute nacht Adolf!


----------



## mamatutu

Gilligan said:


> The Muslims have *far* more instructions in print right now on how to rid the world of us infidels and apostates. Does that mean they win?  LOL.



Yes, the 'instructions' I heard about today is that they are perfecting bombs that cannot be detected by airport security.  Yay!


----------



## mamatutu

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> When islamic jihad breaks out in Wildewood, I'll remember you warned me...
> Gute nacht Adolf!



I don't get your whimsical/blase'/can't happen here attitude.  Do you really not consider jihadists/radical Muslims/ISIL a serious threat?  Just wondering.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

mamatutu said:


> I don't get your whimsical/blase'/can't happen here attitude.  Do you really not consider jihadists/radical Muslims/ISIL a serious threat?  Just wondering.



I consider all religion a threat to the planet, but I don't live my life in fear.


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> I consider all religion a threat to the planet, but I don't live my life in fear.



Who's living in fear? You just need to live in real time and not some fantasy land. In your current state, your fear will come after you kick out.


----------



## mamatutu

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> I consider all religion a threat to the planet, but I don't live my life in fear.



I don't live in fear of my life, either.  But, I do pay attention to a religion that has offshoots that are loose cannons and out of control.  Their mantra is death to all that don't believe.  I just get the impression that you think you will not be touched by the atrocities from ISIL, or whatever you want to call them.  The world knew what was going on a 1000 years ago, and they tried to stop it.  It was called The Crusades.  I understand your point about religion, but sheesh, do you condone killing in the name of religion?  Oh, I know, you will say that the Crusaders killed in the name of religion, but I am sure that you, actually, get the point.  Who kills their own daughters because of religion, and he is now on top 10 FBI most wanted?  If that isn't insanely fanatical, then what is?  Here you go.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...or-killer-added-to-fbis-ten-most-wanted-list/

Edit:  Oh, and Hitler didn't do his dastardly deeds in the name of religion.  He did them because he was the ultimate narcissist, and wanted to take over the world.  Sound familiar?


----------



## Gilligan

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> I was asking what the alternative is to religious tolerance.



Attack with automatic rifles and kill everyone you disagree with. Like in Paris this morning.


----------



## b23hqb

Gilligan said:


> Attack with automatic rifles and kill everyone you disagree with. Like in Paris this morning.



Yup. France. One of the European countries, according to CleanTheSlate's thoughtless process, that is not suffering from the religious intolerance of his muslim brethren.


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Yup. France. One of the European countries, according to CleanTheSlate's thoughtless process, that is not suffering from the religious intolerance of his muslim brethren.




Quote Originally Posted by b23hqb: "Especially countries in Europe that are allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia. See how freedom of religion is working there? The majority caves into the minority, and lose their rights of religion by being told what they can say, believe, and stand up for, except for concerning Islam. Islam trumps all."
Quote Originally Posted by CleanTheSlateInSMC: "Which countries in Europe are "allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia?" "

Not exactly what CleanTheSlateInSMC said, seems to me that if the Muslims were actually running the laws in France it would have been the French police who shot the newspaper up, and the French police would not be looking for the gunmen.  Just because a country has criminals doesn't make it a criminal-run country.  We had terrorists blow up a marathon here, doesn't mean we are a country that embraces terrorism.


----------



## Larry Gude

Gilligan said:


> Attack with automatic rifles and kill everyone you disagree with. Like in Paris this morning.



How timely. Now, it is ALL on the US media to denounce Islam and treat it like the Klan. It is on them to join together and show every cartoon and satire piece these people were killed over. 

This is ALL on the media now.


----------



## Bustem' Down

Larry Gude said:


> How timely. Now, it is ALL on the US media to denounce Islam and treat it like the Klan. It is on them to join together and show every cartoon and satire piece these people were killed over.
> 
> This is ALL on the media now.



Or we could ignore it and not give the toddler the attention it craves.


----------



## Larry Gude

Bustem' Down said:


> Or we could ignore it and not give the toddler the attention it craves.



What is 'it'?


----------



## Bustem' Down

Larry Gude said:


> What is 'it'?



The attack.  I'm sure the talking heads on tv will be going over this ad nauseum for the next couple of days which is just what the attackers want.  Just report it and move on.


----------



## b23hqb

Amused_despair said:


> Quote Originally Posted by b23hqb: "Especially countries in Europe that are allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia. See how freedom of religion is working there? The majority caves into the minority, and lose their rights of religion by being told what they can say, believe, and stand up for, except for concerning Islam. Islam trumps all."
> Quote Originally Posted by CleanTheSlateInSMC: "Which countries in Europe are "allowing their laws and religious freedoms to be usurped by Muslims and their demands for Sharia?" "
> 
> Not exactly what CleanTheSlateInSMC said, seems to me that if the Muslims were actually running the laws in France it would have been the French police who shot the newspaper up, and the French police would not be looking for the gunmen.  Just because a country has criminals doesn't make it a criminal-run country.  We had terrorists blow up a marathon here, doesn't mean we are a country that embraces terrorism.



Disagree. These people are not criminals by any stretch of the imagination, simply breaking laws that require police action and pursuit. These people are jihadist terrorists using their law to spur the reaction of the police. This is just another step toward their goal, and there will be more. If you think that France is not under the gun of Islam to plant Sharia law there, to usurp the laws of France, you are as lost as Clean is.


----------



## Bustem' Down

b23hqb said:


> Disagree. These people are not criminals by any stretch of the imagination, simply breaking laws that require police action and pursuit. These people are jihadist terrorists using their law to spur the reaction of the police. This is just another step toward their goal, and there will be more. If you think that France is not under the gun of Islam to plant Sharia law there, to usurp the laws of France, you are as lost as Clean is.



But just because someone wants to put it there doesn't mean France will.


----------



## Larry Gude

Bustem' Down said:


> The attack.  I'm sure the talking heads on tv will be going over this ad nauseum for the next couple of days which is just what the attackers want.  Just report it and move on.



Ok, but, is that how to over come this, ignore it? Again, the media needs to stand up and speak out, long and hard, about this. And not just because it is their job but also simple self preservation.


----------



## Bustem' Down

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, but, is that how to over come this, ignore it? Again, the media needs to stand up and speak out, long and hard, about this. And not just because it is their job but also simple self preservation.



Didn't happen here so all I need to know is that it happened.  Doesn't affect my life otherwise.


----------



## b23hqb

Bustem' Down said:


> But just because someone wants to put it there doesn't mean France will.



The French have a long and glorious history of standing fast and holding their ground to the end, never compromising their ideals or surrendering to anyone or any nation/country/group.


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Disagree. These people are not criminals by any stretch of the imagination, simply breaking laws that require police action and pursuit. These people are jihadist terrorists using their law to spur the reaction of the police. This is just another step toward their goal, and there will be more. If you think that France is not under the gun of Islam to plant Sharia law there, to usurp the laws of France, you are as lost as Clean is.



We have people protesting against the police, rioting.  We have had people protesting against economic inequality, rioting.  Is this our country?  Are we a country that allows mob rule and gives into what a vocal minority demands?  If so then we are exactly as you portray France to be. if not then the same argument could be made for France.


----------



## Bustem' Down

b23hqb said:


> The French have a long and glorious history of standing fast and holding their ground to the end, never compromising their ideals or surrendering to anyone or any nation/country/group.



So why compare France to anyone else?  Why because you think it's inevitable in France it will be here?


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> The French have a long and glorious history of standing fast and holding their ground to the end, never compromising their ideals or surrendering to anyone or any nation/country/group.



Actually the French stood their ground in WW1, they were simply out-maneuvered, out-gunned, and out-fought in WW2.  They were ready to refight WW1 all over again and German took advantage of that.


----------



## Larry Gude

Bustem' Down said:


> Didn't happen here so all I need to know is that it happened.  Doesn't affect my life otherwise.



That is absurd. 9/11 dramatically affected your life. This incident is a lot smaller but, it is of a kind and it does affect your life.


----------



## Bustem' Down

Larry Gude said:


> That is absurd. 9/11 dramatically affected your life. This incident is a lot smaller but, it is of a kind and it does affect your life.



You're right, it did.  And what country did 9/11 happen in?


----------



## b23hqb

Bustem' Down said:


> You're right, it did.  And what country did 9/11 happen in?



What happened earlier today in France does, and will continue to, affect the US. It will call out the cowardice of the media to make a freedom of speech stand, but probably not. Obama will not call this what it is - an Islamic terrorist attack. It took an hour this morning for the WH to change their call from a crime to a terrorist act. It won't go any further than that.

That affects us as a collective.


----------



## Bustem' Down

b23hqb said:


> What happened earlier today in France does, and will continue to, affect the US. It will call out the cowardice of the media to make a freedom of speech stand, but probably not. Obama will not call this what it is - an Islamic terrorist attack. It took an hour this morning for the WH to change their call from a crime to a terrorist act. It won't go any further than that.
> 
> That affects us as a collective.



I disagree.  It has not affected my freedoms at all.


----------



## b23hqb

Amused_despair said:


> Actually the French stood their ground in WW1, they were simply out-maneuvered, out-gunned, and out-fought in WW2.  They were ready to refight WW1 all over again and German took advantage of that.



This is a good synopsis of the history of France and war, with some funny sarcasm tossed in:

http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/france_at_war.htm


----------



## ProximaCentauri

b23hqb said:


> This is a good synopsis of the history of France and war, with some funny sarcasm tossed in:
> 
> http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/france_at_war.htm



Good synopsis? Please. Pick websites that fit your biases much? You and every other joe six-pack. You are incapable of using your brain. Your brain and it's biases are using you. You, and others like you who frequent the SOMD forums (not exactly the bastion of independent intelligence I realize), add as much value to any serious intellectual conversation (again I realize is not the norm in these forums) as a warm bucket of spit.


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> Good synopsis? Please. Pick websites that fit your biases much? You and every other joe six-pack. You are incapable of using your brain. Your brain and it's biases are using you. You, and others like you who frequent the SOMD forums (not exactly the bastion of independent intelligence I realize), add as much value to any serious intellectual conversation (again I realize is not the norm in these forums) as a warm bucket of spit.



Some powerful irony there ^,  Gomer.


----------



## b23hqb

ProximaCentauri said:


> Good synopsis? Please. Pick websites that fit your biases much? You and every other joe six-pack. You are incapable of using your brain. Your brain and it's biases are using you. You, and others like you who frequent the SOMD forums (not exactly the bastion of independent intelligence I realize), add as much value to any serious intellectual conversation (again I realize is not the norm in these forums) as a warm bucket of spit.



If you are humorless, which you appear to be, so be your answer.  It is a synopsis of the  results of the wars France has fought in, with nice anecdotes on the results. I am so glad you have no biases yourself, pc, and every post you make is dead center of the topic, with no leanings either way on your posts.


----------



## Radiant1

That website didn't make mention of the Battle of Tours which is considered by many historians to be one of the most important turning points in Western History. Charles Martel, Hammer of Muslims, Champion of Christians is one of my favorite historical figures. France is in desperate need of another Charlie!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> That website didn't make mention of the Battle of Tours which is considered by many historians to be one of the most important turning points in Western History. Charles Martel, Hammer of Muslims, Champion of Christians is one of my favorite historical figures. France is in desperate need of another Charlie!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel



They have some good guys, for sure. Again, what I posted was one link from a number of extremely in depth links that essentially cited all the battles from their wars, and France does have a severe losing record. It was a synopsis of their major encounters with other countries, with humor sarcastically added. 

Just heard earlier a very interesting take on the current situation in France concerning islam compared to the US:

Fifteen years ago, France and their muslim problem was like a stage 2 cancer that was left untreated, and it continued to be ignored by the government, and festered and blew up into what is now stage 4 - deadly.

Fifteen years ago, the US was at a stage 1 cancer concerning the problem. After 9/11, we progressed to stage 2, where it pretty much currently sits. However, our leaders and government are ignoring the problem just like France did, and continue to cater to the muslims, just like France did. At the same time, our leaders urge people and media outlets to not even speak out against or criticize Islam.

This is a freedom of speech issue when the government, while not yet completely banning certain topics, certainly wish they could, just so the relatively small, estimated 5% of Islam, between 75 - 100 million of islamic jihadists believers don't get their robes and scarves all scrunched up in a wad. Add to that the estimated 25% of Islam that supports and/or condones some form of violent jihad, well, that puts the estimated total of those that want the West dead could very well be at about 400 million.

Eh, what's 400 or so million peoples around the world wanting you dead? No big deal.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

b23hqb said:


> If you are humorless, which you appear to be, so be your answer.  It is a synopsis of the  results of the wars France has fought in, with nice anecdotes on the results. I am so glad you have no biases yourself, pc, and every post you make is dead center of the topic, with no leanings either way on your posts.



b23bqb, right you are, everyone has their biases. It's only a matter of degree. People form their own ideas of reality. How close those ideas are to objective reality is also a matter of degree. Do the Muslims who murdered the French journalists have a hideously warped view of reality? Yes. On that matter, we are in violent agreement. But I would also argue that you, and Christians like you, are only a hairs breadth away from this station of unreality and ultimate insanity. Reason and ignorance are opposites. There has never been, and never will be, any greater ignorance of human beings, than to believe in imaginary Gods and gleefully kill for them.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> They have some good guys, for sure. Again, what I posted was one link from a number of extremely in depth links that essentially cited all the battles from their wars, and France does have a severe losing record. It was a synopsis of their major encounters with other countries, with humor sarcastically added.
> 
> Just heard earlier a very interesting take on the current situation in France concerning islam compared to the US:
> 
> Fifteen years ago, France and their muslim problem was like a stage 2 cancer that was left untreated, and it continued to be ignored by the government, and festered and blew up into what is now stage 4 - deadly.
> 
> Fifteen years ago, the US was at a stage 1 cancer concerning the problem. After 9/11, we progressed to stage 2, where it pretty much currently sits. However, our leaders and government are ignoring the problem just like France did, and continue to cater to the muslims, just like France did. At the same time, our leaders urge people and media outlets to not even speak out against or criticize Islam.
> 
> This is a freedom of speech issue when the government, while not yet completely banning certain topics, certainly wish they could, just so the relatively small, estimated 5% of Islam, between 75 - 100 million of islamic jihadists believers don't get their robes and scarves all scrunched up in a wad. Add to that the estimated 25% of Islam that supports and/or condones some form of violent jihad, well, that puts the estimated total of those that want the West dead could very well be at about 400 million.
> 
> Eh, what's 400 or so million peoples around the world wanting you dead? No big deal.



I don't particularly disagree with you about the Islamic problem and the current inability or unwillingness to do anything about it, but a thought came to mind when reading your post. If today's incident makes France a stage 4 deadly cancer, then surely the US was already there with 9/11. The person whom you are repeating isn't thinking straight, nor are they being particularly fair to France. Your freedom of speech comment seems moot because 1) even if the gov't wanted to ban certain topics it hasn't and 2) the incident in France today was because of their published cartoon, in other words, their expression of that very freedom.

Stop wasting time dissing France. They hold to the same values we do, and they are our ally. Imo, France's ability or lack thereof to win wars in the past shouldn't be anyone's focus right now.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> ... the incident in France today was because of their published cartoon, in other words, their expression of that very freedom.



No it wasn't.  It was because of a very selfish, intolerant, hateful ideology.  Would you get so angry as to kill over someone publishing a cartoon that caricatures you or Jesus in a negative light?  I know you wouldn’t.  When I say something that could be construed as offensive, the person that gets offended only chooses to get offended.  My comment does not, in any way, force them to get offended.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> No it wasn't.  It was because of a very selfish, intolerant, hateful ideology.  Would you get so angry as to kill over someone publishing a cartoon that caricatures you or Jesus in a negative light?  I know you wouldn’t.  When I say something that could be construed as offensive, the person that gets offended only chooses to get offended.  My comment does not, in any way, force them to get offended.



I think you took my statement out of context, but that's ok because yours is still an excellent point.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> I don't particularly disagree with you about the Islamic problem and the current inability or unwillingness to do anything about it, but a thought came to mind when reading your post. If today's incident makes France a stage 4 deadly cancer, then surely the US was already there with 9/11. The person whom you are repeating isn't thinking straight, nor are they being particularly fair to France. Your freedom of speech comment seems moot because 1) even if the gov't wanted to ban certain topics it hasn't and 2) the incident in France today was because of their published cartoon, in other words, their expression of that very freedom.
> 
> Stop wasting time dissing France. They hold to the same values we do, and they are our ally. Imo, France's ability or lack thereof to win wars in the past shouldn't be anyone's focus right now.



History has ways of strangely repeating itself. You did not understand the analogy of cancer. France has been at a stage 4 for about 10 years now. This current rampage by islam is a result of France being in that state, mainly caused by France's inability or not wanting to, both for sure, to confront the Islamic issue eating at their society and culture. Muslims make up right at 8% of the population.

The US is still at stage 2 since 9/11, simply because we don't have the Islamic cancer that France has had since then. the muslim population only makes up about 1% of our entire population. But we have a media that goes out of it's way to placate Islam at all costs, a president and his mouthpieces that refuse to call Islamic terrorism what it is, instead of "work place violence, senseless crimes" etc., absolute PC in regards to Islam. France did the same thing.

We're heading down that same road to stage 4, where our burgeoning immoral culture, PC, and absolute cowing to Islam, eats away at us as well. It is inevitable, unless our leaders and the media get a spine, call it and face it for what it is.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> History has ways of strangely repeating itself. You did not understand the analogy of cancer. France has been at a stage 4 for about 10 years now. This current rampage by islam is a result of France being in that state, mainly caused by France's inability or not wanting to, both for sure, to confront the Islamic issue eating at their society and culture. Muslims make up right at 8% of the population.
> 
> The US is still at stage 2 since 9/11, simply because we don't have the Islamic cancer that France has had since then. the muslim population only makes up about 1% of our entire population. But we have a media that goes out of it's way to placate Islam at all costs, a president and his mouthpieces that refuse to call Islamic terrorism what it is, instead of "work place violence, senseless crimes" etc., absolute PC in regards to Islam. France did the same thing.
> 
> We're heading down that same road to stage 4, where our burgeoning immoral culture, PC, and absolute cowing to Islam, eats away at us as well. It is inevitable, unless our leaders and the media get a spine, call it and face it for what it is.



So what you're calling an "Islamic cancer" is simply Muslim population numbers. France being at stage 4 because of it's 8% Muslim population and the US being only at stage 2 because of it's 1% population. So to be cancer free is to have as 0% Muslim population?


----------



## Hessian

What I want a think-tank to produce is a simple chart:
Column 1=Dated horrific (Islamic) Terrorist event
Column 2=obama's labeling of the event (sans any reference to his beloved islam)

The evidence is stark: he incapable of linking the words 'Islamic terrorism'
What can be done with a man incapable of recognizing the nose on his face? (institutionalize?)
Is he cowardly? Naive? In denial? an Apologist?....no matter,...he is wrong as always.


----------



## mamatutu

Hessian said:


> What I want a think-tank to produce is a simple chart:
> Column 1=Dated horrific (Islamic) Terrorist event
> Column 2=obama's labeling of the event (sans any reference to his beloved islam)
> 
> The evidence is stark: he incapable of linking the words 'Islamic terrorism'
> What can be done with a man incapable of recognizing the nose on his face? (institutionalize?)
> Is he cowardly? Naive? In denial? an Apologist?....no matter,...he is wrong as always.



First of all his nose identifies with Islam.  Second, you forgot narcissist.  There is no negotiating with a narcissist or changing their mind.  My first husband was one.  Also, narcissist is linked to sociopath.  Obama has been in campaign mode ever since he came to office.  He just cares about how he appears.   I know all of our US prezs haven't been perfect, but why did we end up with an egotistical, wash rag, mambie pambie (and don't forget narcissist) leader of the free world in such a dire time?  And, don't forget he is a communist.  Does he think we are just going to walk into his agenda?  Talk about bad luck and bad voting.  I have said many times before that Obama is not a patriot.  He is our worst enemy.  God bless America.


----------



## Hessian

Test case,....
http://toprightnews.com/?p=7919

"A 41-year-old Ohio man armed with several knives tried to buy a plane ticket with a fake ID before being gunned down by police after lunging at an officer with a blade outside the Columbus airport, police said.

Hashim Hanif Ibn Abdul-Rasheed had parked illegally outside the ticketing terminal and was acting bizarrely as he tried to buy a ticket to an undisclosed location Wednesday afternoon. He showed off a woman’s ID to try and make the buy at one point before he was rebuffed, cops said."

How will our national embarrassment (Soetoro) describe this event?
Work Place Violence?
Police acting "stupidly?"
NTSB event?
NSA incident?
A case of mistaken identity?

C'mon Barry,...get creative!


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Test case,....
> http://toprightnews.com/?p=7919
> 
> "A 41-year-old Ohio man armed with several knives tried to buy a plane ticket with a fake ID before being gunned down by police after lunging at an officer with a blade outside the Columbus airport, police said.
> 
> Hashim Hanif Ibn Abdul-Rasheed had parked illegally outside the ticketing terminal and was acting bizarrely as he tried to buy a ticket to an undisclosed location Wednesday afternoon. He showed off a woman’s ID to try and make the buy at one point before he was rebuffed, cops said."
> 
> How will our national embarrassment (Soetoro) describe this event?
> Work Place Violence?
> Police acting "stupidly?"
> NTSB event?
> NSA incident?
> A case of mistaken identity?
> 
> C'mon Barry,...get creative!



How do you think this incident should be described? 

ABC news reports this guy as mentally ill (he had frozen urine in his car), suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Your new source reports his religion as muslim, and suggests "Jihad in Ohio?" The world is full of religious nut jobs and wackos  (present company excluded, of course), as well of nut jobs and wackos who subscribe to a religion. You appear to attribute all violent crime committed by muslims to be an indictment of the religion as a whole. The news is also full of reports of christian leaders committing child rape and molestation. Should these crimes demand an indictment of Christianity as a whole? Of course not.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> So what you're calling an "Islamic cancer" is simply Muslim population numbers. France being at stage 4 because of it's 8% Muslim population and the US being only at stage 2 because of it's 1% population. So to be cancer free is to have as 0% Muslim population?



No, but you sure like throwing in qualifiers that attempt to change the equation. If you can't keep on point, don't try and change the point.

Think about it, but you probably won't in your hurry to come up another retort. The Muslims that perform these atrocities, is the cancer, and the rest of Islam that does nothing to stop it contribute to the growth and spread of it. If the rest of the body does nothing to keep it from spreading, outside of the occasional "maybe I'll think about saying something about it to somebody that won't say who I am so I won't probably get my head cut off" kind of thingy.......

I think you understand what I am saying and have said. You're just playing ignorant for whatever reason to prolong the topic. You're statement of cancer free is just stupid.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> What I want a think-tank to produce is a simple chart:
> Column 1=Dated horrific (Islamic) Terrorist event
> Column 2=obama's labeling of the event (sans any reference to his beloved islam)
> 
> The evidence is stark: he incapable of linking the words 'Islamic terrorism'
> What can be done with a man incapable of recognizing the nose on his face? (institutionalize?)
> Is he cowardly? Naive? In denial? an Apologist?....no matter,...he is wrong as always.



Hatred. One thing religious extremists, muslim and christian, have in common is hatred. I feel sorry for you that you live your life with so much utter hatred for so many people.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> No, but you sure like throwing in qualifiers that attempt to change the equation. If you can't keep on point, don't try and change the point.
> 
> Think about it, but you probably won't in your hurry to come up another retort. The Muslims that perform these atrocities, is the cancer, and the rest of Islam that does nothing to stop it contribute to the growth and spread of it. If the rest of the body does nothing to keep it from spreading, outside of the occasional "maybe I'll think about saying something about it to somebody that won't say who I am so I won't probably get my head cut off" kind of thingy.......
> 
> I think you understand what I am saying and have said. You're just playing ignorant for whatever reason to prolong the topic. You're statement of cancer free is just stupid.



It was a ridiculous analogy to compare a religion to a horrible disease that kills so many people on a daily basis.


----------



## Gilligan

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> It was a ridiculous analogy to compare a religion to a horrible disease that kills so many people on a daily basis.



Inorite? Quite unfair to cancer, if you ask me.....


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Hatred. One thing religious extremists, muslim and christian, have in common is hatred. I feel sorry for you that you live your life with so much utter hatred for so many people.



Hatred? How about reality today, which you seem to know nothing of? Do simple facts and current events really throw you and others off that much?

I guess so.

Nothing ridiculous about equalizing jihadist islam to cancer, don't you think?

Probably not in your mind.


----------



## Hessian

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Hatred. One thing religious extremists, muslim and christian, have in common is hatred. I feel sorry for you that you live your life with so much utter hatred for so many people.



Denial. One thing Liberal post-modernists (socialist & new age) have in common is denial. I feel sorry for you that you live your life with so much incomprehensible blindness toward common sense.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> Nothing ridiculous about equalizing *jihadist* islam to cancer, don't you think?



No there is not. Jihadist islam is a cancer, but you're  taking a do over on your original post comparing the muslim religion to a cancer. That was ridiculous. Good to see that you corrected your original  Islamophobic post.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> No, but you sure like throwing in qualifiers that attempt to change the equation. If you can't keep on point, don't try and change the point.
> 
> Think about it, but you probably won't in your hurry to come up another retort. The Muslims that perform these atrocities, is the cancer, and the rest of Islam that does nothing to stop it contribute to the growth and spread of it. If the rest of the body does nothing to keep it from spreading, outside of the occasional "maybe I'll think about saying something about it to somebody that won't say who I am so I won't probably get my head cut off" kind of thingy.......
> 
> I think you understand what I am saying and have said. You're just playing ignorant for whatever reason to prolong the topic. You're statement of cancer free is just stupid.



I already agreed with the premise about not enough being done or fear of speaking out; however, your attempt to explain your analogy (which was fucking stupid in and of itself) was to spout population numbers. I just took your words to their logical conclusion. :shrug:


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Denial. One thing Liberal post-modernists (socialist & new age) have in common is denial. I feel sorry for you that you live your life with so much incomprehensible blindness toward common sense.



Absolutely! I outright deny that your "common sense" "SOLUTION PART 1" for addressing muslim extremism is anything less than the christian version of religious extremism, but it doesn't surprise me because it's a fairly common solution in the minds of other christian extremists. Both muslim and christian extremists tend to maintain warped interpretations of the bible and koran that fuel their extremist agendas of hate. To the extremist, there is no compromise for coexistence; the only choice they see is the destruction of the other. Most christians and muslims take great comfort and joy in their faiths, and don't have a hateful bone in their bodies. They respect all life, and forgive the unforgivable. For the extremists like yourself, religion fuels their hatred. They hate not only those who follow different religions, but those of their own religion who they don't feel are pious enough, as you pointed out in your original post about the Obamas. Holier-than-thou-ism. The majority of muslim extremist violence is against other muslims for this reason. 

I am an atheist, and therefore deny most of what religions are based on, however I fully respect and defend the 1st amendment, and the religious freedom of choice it guarantees. It's a shame extremist christians like yourself reject such freedom.


----------



## Amused_despair

Seems to me that many people would like to see an inflexible government based upon religious principles in this country, they just don't want one based on Islam.


----------



## Larry Gude

Amused_despair said:


> Seems to me that many people would like to see an inflexible government based upon religious principles in this country, they just don't want one based on Islam.



To which I say if we're gonna have an inflexible gummint, let it be ours. USA! USA! USA!


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Larry Gude said:


> To which I say if we're gonna have an inflexible gummint, let it be ours. USA! USA! USA!



Which one is "ours?" Or are you just making satire?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Larry Gude said:


> To which I say if we're gonna have an inflexible gummint, let it be ours. USA! USA! USA!



So Larry, sarcasm right? From your other posts would not expect you to be the type that has a "Proud to be an American" bumper sticker on the back of his pickup truck. Please say it ain't true.


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> From your other posts would not expect you to be the type that has a "Proud to be an American" bumper sticker on the back of his pickup truck. Please say it ain't true.



Larry?  Oh heck no.  Here's the back of Larry's truck. Does have a flag though,,,,,


----------



## vraiblonde

Gilligan said:


> Larry?  Oh heck no.  Here's the back of Larry's truck. Does have a flag though,,,,,



That's Baja's truck.


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> That's Baja's truck.



Oh. Right. Close....  Larry only has the one...


----------



## Larry Gude

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Which one is "ours?" Or are you just making satire?



When the time comes for choosing sides, I was, and am, with the people who hold the declaration of independence and the constitution dear, whatever our flaws.


----------



## Larry Gude

ProximaCentauri said:


> So Larry, sarcasm right? From your other posts would not expect you to be the type that has a "Proud to be an American" bumper sticker on the back of his pickup truck. Please say it ain't true.



When it comes down to it, je sui American. That is how I identify. I don't care if someone is black or white or Muslim or Jew or whatever IF they hold the US Constitution as THE organizing principle. So, between now and whenever it comes down to it, I think I am arguing for a more perfect union based ON the Constitution. That is my kinship with most everybody on here. Trying to find the part of their point or argument that comports with the Constitution. That is where my arguments arise from. Or, at least that is what  I try to do. And, if/when there is a time of choosing, I am an American. I am now. I am always.


----------



## Larry Gude

Gilligan said:


> Oh. Right. Close....  Larry only has the one...



I don't do bumper stickers. I don't do lapel pins. I don't do tats or piercings. At my most outrageous, I wear t shirts. 

I'm a rebel that way.


----------



## Gilligan

Larry Gude said:


> I don't do bumper stickers. I don't do lapel pins. I don't do tats or piercings. At my most outrageous, I wear t shirts.
> 
> I'm a rebel that way.



Do go on with your bad self!


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Hessian said:


> Islam must stop being considered a religion....
> 
> It is a neo fascist movement, oppressive to women, dividing races, and rests on physical & emotional abuse.
> If civil laws were fairly applied, mullahs & muslim bullies would be arrested, charged, fined, separated from their followers.
> 
> NEXT:
> All "student" visas slashed and all illegal aliens expelled.
> 
> Financial support for muslim countries that our INTEL communities have revealed as hosting jihadist cells....Zero the balance. Not another dime.
> 
> States must pass laws saying that Sharia law will NOT be considered in court rulings, and that police will not accommodate shariah dictates...ever.
> 
> Muslim mullahs & teachers are not permitted as chaplains in prisons.
> just a start...



CNN has a story on a group of like-minded folks in Germany that appear to agree with your solution, and they apparently have an opening for chairman.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/europe/germany-pegida-hitler-pose-bild/


----------

